Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The area is home to rich biodiversity of birds, and fish which support local livelihoods and tourism. It is also, according to the EOI, an important carbon sink, storing up to 1000t/ha carbon.
Evidence B:Coral reefs, Mangroves, coastal forest - all extremely important for BD and Conservation and all endangered. though the project might be a bit over ambitious in its geography - best work with a portion really well rather than spread too thinly
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: According to the EOI, a combination of seagrass help storing up to 1000t/ha carbon. This high carbon values/mitigation.
Evidence B:Moderate to high - esp from coastal forest and mangroves where there is good potential for C2. Not so sure about Coral reefs - but they are also very important for shore protection
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: While the area is co-managed by IPLC in line with supportive Kenyan legal and policy architecture, lack of nationally approved management guidelines heightens the lack of security of tenure.
Evidence B:there are great opps for IPLCs through BMUs (fishing), CFAs (Mangroves and forests). But IPLCs need to be able to exercise their rights and responsibilities. While Gov has legitimated BMUs and CFAs in policy and law - Gov still attaches many strings. I hope this project can result in greater security of rights (land, resources) together with responsibilities (sustainable use, restoration0
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The EOI strongly provides for the economic significance of the area, but vaguely describes the area’s cultural significance to the IPLC.
Evidence B:A complex of cultural significance - Kaya Forests as sacred groves, importance of mangroves and coastal forests to the lives of the people, and the whole fishing culture
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: While listing ecological threats, the EOI restates common prejudices and stereotypes about IPLC. For example, it attributes habitat loss and damage to “low education level” and “poor understanding of ecosystem functions.”
Evidence B:Loss of Mangroves (to building, clearing for tourism), loss of fishery - due to outsiders over exploiting (and IPLCs over exploiting). Outsiders taking over too much of the resource. Coral reefs suffering from over exploitation, over tourism influence (though might be improving now with COVID restrictions)
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The legal and policy environment is conducive to IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area. The National Oceans and Fisheries Policy (under review) and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, exemplify this point. The later requires consultative processes and co-management of fisheries resources.
Evidence B:The rhetoric of policy/law is there (BMU, CFA, Sacred Sites) but implementation does not necessarily empower (rights and responsibilities for management, ownership not really vested in communities
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Cumulatively, a plethora of laws and policies suggest that the government actively supports IPLC-lead conservation. However the EIO indicates that community governance is weakened by lack of land tenure.
Evidence B:BMUs, CFAs recognized and in operation and supported by Gov. But there are usually too many conditions, LMMAs are a big opportuninty but need to be related to support in policy (through BMU, CFA etc.) as a means to empower IPLCS
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The EOI makes reference to attempts at setting voluntary community institutions. However most of them are still in pilot stages only.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: An impressive number of donor funded projects with complementarity potentials to the proposed project are mentioned in the EOI. These include IUCN and Fauna and Flora International supported projects on technical and institutional support.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed approach is well aligned to the overall objective. For example, it envisages strengthening IPLC stewardship and user rights of marine resources, while simultaneously improving ecological integrity of the area.
Evidence B:Good to see another EoI with a decent ToC. The EoI is very well aligned - but (like a number of EoIs) it is over ambitious for the likely resources that will be available. So I suggest focusing on one county with XX BMUs and LMMAs. Though this good include lesson learning from other areas (e.g Kisite NP and its co-work with communities. Then what is the big result they expect - surely it is about security of land/water right and responsibilities by the responsible institutions . That will then need analaysis, capacity, policy support and so forth - So really focus the activities on achieving the outcome to achieve the goal. if there is a gap analysis - what will you do with the result of the gap analysis (links to capacity, policy change, security of rights and so forth
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The EOI provides a convincing set of activities that are doable. For example, it avoids over ambitious tasks of reforming legal and policy frameworks and instead opts to sensitive the community on IPLC-supportive laws and policies. However it is unclear how it would assist the county government to formulate policies.
Evidence B:Over ambitious set of activities and results - this can be focused more if you get the overall goal right. But it is v.g. to have a good ToC such as this to start with
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The activities are realistic and sufficiently ambitious. However, indications of negative stereotypes towards IPLC needs to be removed.
Evidence B:As said overambitious - Focus on a certain area (County, XX BMUs and so forth) and really do a good job there, learn lessons for adapting and replicating in other parts of teh coast. This will then go a long way to IPLC led conservation (BMUs, LMMAs, Sacred Groves, CFAs and so forth). If you have a good focus on IPLC learning that will be hugely important for others and replicating results in Kenya
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Activities and results are well aligned, and they can be achieved within the proposed time and within the proposed budget line.
Evidence B:Except focus on a specific geography and really do a good job there with plenty of local (village, fisher, etc. ) learning
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: While the EOI lists an impressive number of complementary projects, it does not quantify them. In this way it is not clear how much they can potentially contribute to the ambitious proposed activities.
Evidence B:a number of short term smallish co-finance from diverse sources - including Gov which is good - shows they seem to have good links with country government
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The total area under improved management is listed to be 130, 000 Ha. This is a moderate contribution.
Evidence B:I think they have underestimated area of influence - but again focus and do a good job in a smaller area, and not spread too thinly
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The EOI alludes to restoring the elders’ roles in artisanal fish management. However, no other cultural and livelihood results are listed/discussed, the remaining are too general.
Evidence B:Mostly livelihood related indicators - I am sure there are some cultural attributes which are important - e.g. sacred species, groves, historic no-go areas and such like. Such cultural attributes help make the project community owned
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: How results gained will be sustained after the expiry of the funding period is vaguely provided. For example the EOI relies on shifting the roles to the county government. Country governments are known for having multiple projects competing for meager resources-human and financial.
Evidence B:Because they are building capacity of existing institutions and support for their rights and responsibilitie - institution such as BMUs, CFAs, LMMAs, working with KWS. Thankfully not going to create new institutions!!
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The EOI indicates knowledge of the relevant national priorities. However it does not explain clearly how the proposed activities are aligned to the national priorities.
Evidence B:Especially for the NBSAPs - with respect to coastline, mangroves, coral and the important coastal forests. NDCs will be supported through improved management, restoration of mangroves
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The project envisions ensuring that women are included in decision making organs of the BMU. However it is not free from stereotypes, that illiteracy is a key impediment. Should this be the case, it would take longer time to eradicate illiteracy.
Evidence B:Gender representation in BMUs is key (not just here but all over Kenya). Men do the fishing in the sea, and women do all the rest of the work!! yet are hardly respresented properly - its still too tokenistic. Glad to see this Coast Women in Fisheries network - that they will be a focus of support and capacity building and empowerment - e.g. through value chains
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The EOI is moderately innovative in that it envisions strengthening IPLC’s stewardship while at the same time scaling up integrity of the ecosystem.
Evidence B:Working with existing institutions (BMUs etc.)and with county government is key to gain ownership and so be able to go to scale. But do this first in a manageable “geography” so that strong lessons can be learnt for others to use.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: No indication is clear from the EOI that it is lead by IPLC organization. Instead, contents point to a professional organization, with IPLC being only beneficiaries (no active roles)
Evidence B:Looks as though the two main groups are IPLCs which is good. As equator prize winners this supports their position. both organizations well recognized at county level by /gov and are nationally registered
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Apart from one project directed from local field office, no evidence is apparent on the face of the EOI that the lead proponent demonstrates on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work.
Evidence B:Welfare CBO with 17yrs exp, OAT just a few years - and have experience in areas of work of the EoI ToC. Also good demonstration of partnerships with Gov, BMUs - so one would assume they are well respected
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Partners listed are mainly technical organization (envisaged to provide technical support). CBOs or community-based organizations do not appear, and no roles are listed. This suggests that the lead organization has no strong partnership with the IPLC.
Evidence B:Good and relevant array of important partners - which include IPLCs, Government, NGOs - which makes for a good mix for implementation and long term sustainability
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The EOI does not list qualifications of key officials from which one can gauge possession of technical capacity. However activities implemented suggest moderate capacity.
Evidence B:No GEF exp; but good demonstrated track record in this field, and main partners have the necessary skills/exp for the project - though they will also be involving other partners in implementation (e.g. Fisheries, KWS)
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Very limited capacity as no criteria is met. For example, the largest budget of the project that the organization is currently implementing is US$10,000 to 100,000
Evidence B:No large projects, but demonstrated diverse portfolio of smaller projects from diverse donors. This also supports need to focus on XX BMUs in YY Geography (e.g. a county) and not be swamped in too much $$$s
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The lead proponent has no experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF.
Evidence B:No